[gregorio]

I mean, let’s Occam’s Razor this, shall we? What’s the simplest explanation?

Apparently the simplest explanation is to make up some bizarre story involving space ships and giant sand worms and then argue against it/yourself.

I’m still laughing!

How long does it take you to format a reply?

About 10 mins in that instance.

G

 

[bfreedma]

A good friend is a VP of production at a major label, and was involved with the deal there. He extrapolated the numbers based on the other labels and the grunt work needed. I imagine his educated guess is pretty accurate.

Listen, your argument was short-sighted back when people were posting on this forum about when major streaming services were going to move to high-resolution. Now that they actually have, and spent fortunes to do so, the argument is, with respect, nonsensical. It is simply not a debate anymore as to whether or not streaming services are going to embrace high-resolution. They already have. They blew a lot of cash to do it. It’s a done deal. Debate over.

And to be clear, I know how the written word can be taken the wrong way, so let me be clear- I’m not trying to be a dick. It’s just that the point of this thread is to determine what the issue is with Amazon and Android-based DAPs, and, if any exists, what the workaround is. I do value your opinion, you’ve been on this forum longer than I have (and I’ve been on it too long, ha ha) so if you know something about this, I’m all ears.

So your "$400 million last year on hi res" knowledge is at least third hand and the person would only be familiar with licensing royalties. And with that amount of extraordinarily limited knowledge, including zero knowledge of infrastructure costs, distribution costs, labor costs, and a dozen other cost centers, you "imagine his educated guess is pretty accurate". And that's without getting into how the licensing model actually works, which is the hard fact that very little is spent up front when capturing content licensing. The money is in the playback payments.

On the other hand, I'm estimating based on 1st hand knowledge of running a very large environment (more daily transactions, but less total data than Amazon music) and what the implementation and recurring costs are for an AWS environment handling in excess of 1 billion transactions per day.

Amazon's total expense line for media purchase and distribution in 2020 was 11.8B - this is public record. Do you really believe that they spent $400M of that on hi-res? Do you believe that there is enough hi res content to reach than number? Do you have any evidence besides a sliver of information from a friend?

Bottom line - you're making uneducated guesses and those guesses are wrong. Dramatically wrong.

 

[Earbones]

So your "$400 million last year on hi res" knowledge is at least third hand and the person would only be familiar with licensing royalties. And with that amount of extraordinarily limited knowledge, including zero knowledge of infrastructure costs, distribution costs, labor costs, and a dozen other cost centers, you "imagine his educated guess is pretty accurate". And that's without getting into how the licensing model actually works, which is the hard fact that very little is spent up front when capturing content licensing. The money is in the playback payments.

On the other hand, I'm estimating based on 1st hand knowledge of running a very large environment (more daily transactions, but less total data than Amazon music) and what the implementation and recurring costs are for an AWS environment handling in excess of 1 billion transactions per day.

Amazon's total expense line for media purchase and distribution in 2020 was 11.8B - this is public record. Do you really believe that they spent $400M of that on hi-res? Do you believe that there is enough hi res content to reach than number? Do you have any evidence besides a sliver of information from a friend?

Bottom line - you're making uneducated guesses and those guesses are wrong. Dramatically wrong.

I’m sorry, are you now trying to explain how licensing works to me? I’m not in music, but in an adjacent industry, and if you think any rep for a creative or studio exec goes into a deal without knowing the associated costs on the other side of the table, then I would very much like some of your pills. They sound amazing.

As I said I’m not in music, but the numbers didn’t seem particularly outlandish to me, not with the scope of the catalog, nor when compared to similar deals in my industry. I can think of a single 30 year old half-hour sitcom that recently netted $500 million. And we’re discussing literally most music ever recorded.

You are an amateur enthusiast with zero working knowledge of how any of these deals are struck, nor the monies associated. Have a great day.

 

[bfreedma]

I’m sorry, are you now trying to explain how licensing works to me? I’m not in music, but in an adjacent industry, and if you think any rep for a creative or studio exec goes into a deal without knowing the associated costs on the other side of the table, then I would very much like some of your pills. They sound amazing.

As I said I’m not in music, but the numbers didn’t seem particularly outlandish to me, not with the scope of the catalog, nor when compared to similar deals in my industry. I can think of a single 30 year old half-hour sitcom that recently netted $500 million. And we’re discussing literally most music ever recorded.

You are an amateur enthusiast with zero working knowledge of how any of these deals are struck, nor the monies associated. Have a great day.

This is absurd.

Your entire position is based on one dubious data point that you, without attribution, extrapolated into a fabricated annual expenditure for which you cannot provide any evidence to support. Comparing the value of original content including its long term serialized value over multiple distribution channels to an alternate format of existing music content via an existing distribution channel is a red herring. But if you want to base your position that the multimedia value of Seinfeld (or a similar hugely popular tv series) somehow gives you a window into the cost of adding licensing high res versions of music one already has the rights to as a music service, i don’t know what to say.

You keep reiterating that the alleged $400 million is for “literally most music ever recorded”. What percentage of recorded music is available in native high res format and not simply up converted 44/16? I’d say the percentage is far short of “literally most music ever recorded”. I’d be surprised if more than 1% of all music was available in a native high res format. And 99% of that less than 1% was already available to Amazon in 44/16, so again, the iterative licensing costs are relatively minimal.

As I’ve previously stated, I have direct, hands on knowledge of similarly scoped infrastructure environments and their associated standup and operational costs. While not trivial, certainly not going to be a significant fraction of $400M, particularly given that Amazon is using their own AWS platform for infrastructure.

Assuming the ongoing absence of any attribution of your $400M claim, the last comment can be yours. I think anyone reading this exchange in the future will be able to evaluate the validity of our positions without further engagement.

 

[Earbones]

This is absurd.

Your entire position is based on one dubious data point that you, without attribution, extrapolated into a fabricated annual expenditure for which you cannot provide any evidence to support. Comparing the value of original content including its long term serialized value over multiple distribution channels to an alternate format of existing music content via an existing distribution channel is a red herring. But if you want to base your position that the multimedia value of Seinfeld (or a similar hugely popular tv series) somehow gives you a window into the cost of adding licensing high res versions of music one already has the rights to as a music service, i don’t know what to say.

You keep reiterating that the alleged $400 million is for “literally most music ever recorded”. What percentage of recorded music is available in native high res format and not simply up converted 44/16? I’d say the percentage is far short of “literally most music ever recorded”. I’d be surprised if more than 1% of all music was available in a native high res format. And 99% of that less than 1% was already available to Amazon in 44/16, so again, the iterative licensing costs are relatively minimal.

As I’ve previously stated, I have direct, hands on knowledge of similarly scoped infrastructure environments and their associated standup and operational costs. While not trivial, certainly not going to be a significant fraction of $400M, particularly given that Amazon is using their own AWS platform for infrastructure.

Assuming the ongoing absence of any attribution of your $400M claim, the last comment can be yours. I think anyone reading this exchange in the future will be able to evaluate the validity of our positions without further engagement.

You are clearly far from the music industry (or any other creator-based industry) if you think our embarrassing little spat here will be of interest to anyone in the future.

That said, if it is, I think the take away would be pretty simple. I’m merely relaying the educated guess of a record executive who was involved with the debated monies, insomuch as he sat in on the deal for a portion of them at his particular label. And you weren’t there, but are convinced you know the numbers better.

Hey, maybe this will be of interest to future readers… it’s a bit of a microcosm for 2020-2021, no? Expert gives an opinion, opinion is shared on the internet, and every dude immediately knows better. Hey, maybe a portion of the deal was for surplus Ivermectin pills? Screw Fauci, that stuff totally works.

 

[bfreedma]

You are clearly far from the music industry (or any other creator-based industry) if you think our embarrassing little spat here will be of interest to anyone in the future.

That said, if it is, I think the take away would be pretty simple. I’m merely relaying the educated guess of a record executive who was involved with the debated monies, insomuch as he sat in on the deal for a portion of them at his particular label. And you weren’t there, but are convinced you know the numbers better.

Hey, maybe this will be of interest to future readers… it’s a bit of a microcosm for 2020-2021, no? Expert gives an opinion, opinion is shared on the internet, and every dude immediately knows better. Hey, maybe a portion of the deal was for surplus Ivermectin pills? Screw Fauci, that stuff totally works.

The entire debate comes down to this; you made a specific claim that Amazon spent $400M to add high res to it’s offering and despite multiple subsequent posts, can offer zero supporting evidence other than “my friend said”. The incredible irony of you then getting the 2020/21 faux expert analogy and our roles in it backward is hysterical.

It’s you making the claim. When I asked you to support it, your evidence is second hand conversation without the ability to provide even a link to a reputable source. I‘ve searched and can’t locate anything despite the proliferation of information on what Amazon spent on other content. So what we have left is an unsupported rumor being touted as fact on the internet…

And as previously stated, personal attacks are not a substitute for evidence. You seem to have plenty of one and none of the other.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Hey, maybe a portion of the deal was for surplus Ivermectin pills? Screw Fauci, that stuff totally works.

So much that Phizer made own version of the very same formula, at the prime price of course. And yes, screw that guy, agree.

 

[Earbones]

The entire debate comes down to this; you made a specific claim that Amazon spent $400M to add high res to it’s offering and despite multiple subsequent posts, can offer zero supporting evidence other than “my friend said”. The incredible irony of you then getting the 2020/21 faux expert analogy and our roles in it backward is hysterical.

It’s you making the claim. When I asked you to support it, your evidence is second hand conversation without the ability to provide even a link to a reputable source. I‘ve searched and can’t locate anything despite the proliferation of information on what Amazon spent on other content. So what we have left is an unsupported rumor being touted as fact on the internet…

And as previously stated, personal attacks are not a substitute for evidence. You seem to have plenty of one and none of the other.

Listen, you can twist this anyway you want, but the crux of your argument is that a giant streaming service that is a subsidiary of an even more giant mega corporation is faking interest in high-resolution music, claiming to offer it when in fact they have no intention of really doing so, which implies that they have basically decided to engage in a fairly large campaign of subterfuge, lies, and false advertising… rather than just saying “Hey guys, we don’t care about high resolution music, so yeah, it’s not happening”.

The crux of my argument is that sure, maybe you’re right, and the Illuminati is real or whatever, but I don’t really care… I’m just pretty sure Amazon’s new high-resolution music interface is simply having teething problems with Android.

Indeed, before you Fox Moulders took this thread completely off-topic (thanks for that), the ask was if anybody knew exactly what those teething problems were, and workaround for them.

You are fixating on the dollar amount because you believe that if the number is low enough, that somehow proves your point. But regardless of my friend’s opinion that Amazon has invested a good amount of capitol in high-resolution music, and your belief that they have not, that number isn’t really the make or break of your argument, is it? It’s the crazy conspiracy stuff, right?

Sure, I brought up the money to debunk your argument… but I didn’t really need to. Because it’s a bat-s__t crazy argument on the face of it. You’re just objectively wrong. Amazon is not engaged in any conspiracy. Of course they care about high-resolution music, and of course they care about it working well. Because nobody twisted their arm to start offering it in the first place. They offer a high-resolution music streaming service because they believe they can exchange that service for money. It’s just that simple. If Amazon tells me they want to sell me a goddamn killer whale, I will believe them. Because they are in the business of offering goods and services, and then providing said goods and services. For money.

Even if their new orca-buying app doesn’t work on Android.

 

[gregorio]

Listen, you can twist this anyway you want, but the crux of your argument is that a giant streaming service that is a subsidiary of an even more giant mega corporation is faking interest in high-resolution music, claiming to offer it when in fact they have no intention of really doing so, which implies that they have basically decided to engage in a fairly large campaign of subterfuge, lies, and false advertising… rather than just saying “Hey guys, we don’t care about high resolution music, so yeah, it’s not happening”.

Again, making up a false narrative and then arguing with yourself about it. I’m still laughing!

No one has said Amazon is faking interest in HR music. We’re just questioning what that interest is. Is that interest as you claim because they care about HR music and the audiophiles who really want it or is that interest purely a marketing interest, because other big players offer it with their top tier paid subscription.

[1] You’re just objectively wrong. [2] Amazon is not engaged in any conspiracy. Of course they care about high-resolution music, and of course they care about it working well. Because nobody twisted their arm to start offering it in the first place. [3] They offer a high-resolution music streaming service because they believe they can exchange that service for money.

1. If we’re just objectively wrong, then you must have reliable objective evidence to back that assertion up, where is it?

2. You keep quoting fictional conspiracy theories which is just another false narrative you’ve made up so you can argue with yourself. No one is claiming a conspiracy. The term “high-resolution” was a marketing term created just over 20 years ago. Amazon haven’t conspired with all the other distributors of HR music to create a “subterfuge”, they’ve simply jumped on the bandwagon.

3. Right, but of course that can be direct and/or indirect. For example, they don’t want to loose customers, current or future because they’re not offering what others offer. They’re offering HR because their competitors make a marketing point of it. They don’t offer bit-perfect because it’s not really achievable anyway and their competitors don’t make much of a marketing point about it. If, as you claim, Amazon did really care about it, then they would have provided it, they certainly have the resources to do so. They’ll provide bit-perfect HR if or when they consider it’s worth the effort from a marketing perspective. I don’t see why any of this is so difficult to comprehend.

Indeed, before you Fox Moulders took this thread completely off-topic (thanks for that),

You’re the one who brought up the whole what Amazon spent per customer (thanks for that)! The rest of it has NOT been off topic, because:

the ask was if anybody knew exactly what those teething problems were, and workaround for them.

This was actually the ask:

[1] What, exactly, IS the problem with Amazon Music HD and Android playback? [2] Why is it seemingly impossible to implement bit-perfect playback with most Android-based DAPs, no matter how much software wizardry a manufacturer throws at the issue? [3] How can Amazon change this?

Therefore, ON-TOPIC and as I’ve already said:

1. The “problem” is that Amazon don’t see it as a problem worth addressing.
2. It’s “seemingly impossible” because Amazon don’t see enough of a marketing advantage in implementing bit-perfect.
3. By spending the money to change their code, if and when they do see enough of a marketing advantage in doing so.

G

 

[Earbones]

Therefore, ON-TOPIC and as I’ve already said:

1. The “problem” is that Amazon don’t see it as a problem worth addressing.
2. It’s “seemingly impossible” because Amazon don’t see enough of a marketing advantage in implementing bit-perfect.
3. By spending the money to change their code, if and when they do see enough of a marketing advantage in doing so.

Loving this… you yell ON-TOPIC in all caps… and then proceed to reiterate the conspiracy theory you just spent a page claiming you weren’t pushing.

Amazon has decided to offer high-resolution music. This is a fact. They actually want to provide high-resolution music, that’s why they decided to offer it. That’s another fact. To this end, they see the added value that high-resolution music brings to Amazon Music, as well as the marketing advantage of making sure their high-resolution audio performs as promised. Those are two more facts.

It is a conspiracy theory to state that teething problems with Android are not simple technical issues that will eventually be ironed out (or perhaps already have workarounds), but some sort of calculated campaign by Amazon to sabotage the functionality of their own streaming service through willful negligence, because you believe, despite all their statements and actions to the contrary, that they do not care about high-resolution music.

 

[3Putter]

So much that Phizer made own version of the very same formula, at the prime price of course. And yes, screw that guy, agree.

Let's not discount how WELL the existing vaccines work. Or, should I try and sound real smart and say, 'the efficacy of the current iterative'?

 

[3Putter]

Listen, you can twist this anyway you want, but the crux of your argument is that a giant streaming service that is a subsidiary of an even more giant mega corporation is faking interest in high-resolution music, claiming to offer it when in fact they have no intention of really doing so, which implies that they have basically decided to engage in a fairly large campaign of subterfuge, lies, and false advertising… rather than just saying “Hey guys, we don’t care about high resolution music, so yeah, it’s not happening”.

The crux of my argument is that sure, maybe you’re right, and the Illuminati is real or whatever, but I don’t really care… I’m just pretty sure Amazon’s new high-resolution music interface is simply having teething problems with Android.

Indeed, before you Fox Moulders took this thread completely off-topic (thanks for that), the ask was if anybody knew exactly what those teething problems were, and workaround for them.

You are fixating on the dollar amount because you believe that if the number is low enough, that somehow proves your point. But regardless of my friend’s opinion that Amazon has invested a good amount of capitol in high-resolution music, and your belief that they have not, that number isn’t really the make or break of your argument, is it? It’s the crazy conspiracy stuff, right?

Sure, I brought up the money to debunk your argument… but I didn’t really need to. Because it’s a bat-s__t crazy argument on the face of it. You’re just objectively wrong. Amazon is not engaged in any conspiracy. Of course they care about high-resolution music, and of course they care about it working well. Because nobody twisted their arm to start offering it in the first place. They offer a high-resolution music streaming service because they believe they can exchange that service for money. It’s just that simple. If Amazon tells me they want to sell me a goddamn killer whale, I will believe them. Because they are in the business of offering goods and services, and then providing said goods and services. For money.

Even if their new orca-buying app doesn’t work on Android.

I commend your willingness to remain in the ring. I'm with you on this: Amazon's Hifi tier is legit. I don't think it sounds as good as Qubuz or Tidal but it sounds better than anything else. Tried them all. Didn't like the Covid reference (Ivermectin) but who cares, right? The drug works for most people willing to take it and there's an absolute reason healthcare systems won't admit there are available, affordable treatments.

 

[gregorio]

Loving this… you yell ON-TOPIC in all caps… and then proceed to reiterate the conspiracy theory you just spent a page claiming you weren’t pushing.

What conspiracy theory have I reiterated? …

Amazon has decided to offer high-resolution music. This is a fact.

A fact no one is disputing, so why do you keep arguing/repeating it?

They actually want to provide high-resolution music, that’s why they decided to offer it. That’s another fact.

Do they actually want to provide HR music or are they doing it purely for marketing and competition reasons? So, this isn’t a fact, it’s a guess.

To this end, they see the added value that high-resolution music brings to Amazon Music, as well as the marketing advantage of making sure their high-resolution audio performs as promised. Those are two more facts.

Those are not “two more facts”, they’re two more guesses and not very good guesses! Amazon only promised HR music, I can’t see where they promised bit-perfect HR music and if they did see the marketing advantage of bit-perfect HR music, why haven’t they done it, they’ve certainly got the resources?

It is a conspiracy theory to state that teething problems with Android are not simple technical issues that will eventually be ironed out (or perhaps already have workarounds), but some sort of calculated campaign by Amazon to sabotage the functionality of their own streaming service through willful negligence, because you believe, despite all their statements and actions to the contrary, that they do not care about high-resolution music.

Amazon released HD music well over 2 years ago, how is that a “teething problem” and again, how could Amazon not have “ironed it out” in over 2 years with all their resources, unless they do not see enough of a marketing advantage to it?

And, ah this conspiracy theory: “some sort of calculated campaign by Amazon to sabotage the functionality of their own streaming service through wilful negligence”. Yet another false narrative YOU’VE invented, falsely attributed to me and then you argue (with yourself) against it.

It’s a new year and I’m still laughing!

G

 

[dudeX]

To answer the question, Amazon may not offer bit perfect playback because it may not be worth the effort to provide a custom driver that just streams audio if the API provided by Google doesn’t provide all the affordances, like skipping tracks or track scrubbing.

Other manufacturers who do somehow offer it probably have a niche market where it is worth implementing their own solution. And they’re willing to fix the bugs in their code.

On a similar note, now that Apple Music provides lossless, they really haven’t made it easy for 3rd parties to stream it.

 

[Earbones]

What conspiracy theory have I reiterated? …

A fact no one is disputing, so why do you keep arguing/repeating it?

Do they actually want to provide HR music or are they doing it purely for marketing and competition reasons? So, this isn’t a fact, it’s a guess.

Those are not “two more facts”, they’re two more guesses and not very good guesses! Amazon only promised HR music, I can’t see where they promised bit-perfect HR music and if they did see the marketing advantage of bit-perfect HR music, why haven’t they done it, they’ve certainly got the resources?


Amazon released HD music well over 2 years ago, how is that a “teething problem” and again, how could Amazon not have “ironed it out” in over 2 years with all their resources, unless they do not see enough of a marketing advantage to it?

And, ah this conspiracy theory: “some sort of calculated campaign by Amazon to sabotage the functionality of their own streaming service through wilful negligence”. Yet another false narrative YOU’VE invented, falsely attributed to me and then you argue (with yourself) against it.

It’s a new year and I’m still laughing!

G

Dude.

1. Do you believe the current incompatibility with Amazon HD high-resolution music and Android is of a technical nature, one they are working to overcome? And by extension, Amazon is marketing their high-resolution music streaming service, and selling it to Android users via the Play Store, in good faith?

2. Do you believe the current incompatibility is due to calculated negligence on Amazon’s part? That they are intentionally not attempting to make their high-resolution content compatible with Android because they do not believe enough customers care about high-resolution audio? And by extension, intentionally defrauding Android customers by selling a high-resolution music streaming service via the Play Store, when they have no intention of providing high-resolution content?

One of these answers is a conspiracy theory.

I have created no false narratives. You have stated multiple times that Amazon’s high-resolution music service does not function properly on Android because Amazon does not believe enough customers care about high-resolution music to justify making it function properly on Android. As such, Amazon actively makes no attempt to fix the compatibility issues with Android, in order to provide high-resolution content to Android-using subscribers. Your statements imply that Amazon’s beliefs about how many customers care about high-resolution music has emboldened them to defraud their Android-using subscribers by selling them a high-resolution music streaming service in the Play store, when they have no intention of providing high-resolution music.

You even doubled-down by stating that Amazon could have “ironed out” the compatibility issues, but they have not because “they do not see enough of a marketing advantage to it”. How exactly is that not what I have described above? How exactly is that not sabotaging the promised functionality of their own streaming service through willful negligence?

Listen, if you want to believe in a conspiracy theory, at least own it. I mean, it’s 2022. This is the time, man. Lean into it.